Page:Instead of a Book, Tucker.djvu/200

cule the position of its enemies is not in accordance with the
nature of ideas or the custom of Mr. Babcock. How often
have we listened with delight to his sarcastic dissection and
merciless exposure to the light of common sense of some
popular and well-nigh universal delusion in religion, politics,
finance, or social life! He is in the habit of holding ridiculous
all those things, whoever supports them, which his own
reason pronounces absurd. And he is right in doing so, and
wrong in saying that we ought not to follow his example. So,
while it is clear that on the first minor point Mr. Babcock has
the better of Liberty, on the second Liberty as decidedly has
the better of Mr. Babcock.

Now to the question proper. Labor, says our friend, never
gains anything by extravagant claims. True; and no claim
is extravagant that does not exceed justice. But it is equally
true that labor always loses by foolish concessions; and in
this industrial struggle every concession is foolish that falls
short of justice. It is to be decided, then, not whether Liberty's
claim for labor is extravagant, but whether it is just. "Whatever
contributes to production is entitled to an equitable share
in the distribution!" Wrong! Whoever contributes to
production is alone so entitled. What has no rights that Who is
bound to respect. What is a thing. Who is a person. Things
have no claims; they exist only to be claimed. The possession
of a right cannot be predicated of dead material, but
only of a living person. "In the production of a loaf of bread,
the plough performs an important service, and equitably comes
in for a share of the loaf." Absurd! A plough cannot own
bread, and, if it could, would be unable to eat it. A plough is
a What, one of those things above mentioned, to which no
rights are attributable.

Oh! but we see, "Suppose one man spends his life in
making ploughs to be used by others who sow and harvest
wheat. If he furnishes his ploughs only on condition that
they be returned to him in as good state as when taken away,
how is he to get his brea ?" It is the maker of the plough,
then, and not the plough itself, that is entitled to a rewar ?
What has given place to Who. Well, we'll not quarrel over
that. The maker of the plough certainly is entitled to pay for
his work. Full pay, paid once; no more. That pay is the
plough itself, or its equivalent in other marketable products,said
equivalent being measured by the amount of labor employed
in their production. But if he lends his plough and gets only
his plough back, how is he to get his bread? asks Mr. Babcock,